Terrorists: solutions?

Remove all ads!

Since Irak's invasion lots of people died; from time to time terrorists captured one after another people asking to leave Irak and Afganistan; debates opened in the affected countries where people ask politicians to bring troops back home; in every debate I see how people blame on this or that politician or country for all those deads; when terrorists striked Spain, Zapatero promised that he would bring troops back home and so he did when he was elected president, people were happy; now, I see that almost everybody is against Bush's way of dealing with terrorists and I guess is because the results we have seen so far.
Who started all this? I remember September 11 as the first stone throwed, but I know that Afganistan is first and Beirut is first yet, and... memory and knowledge doesn't get me any backwards...
So, what would be like IF US didn't invade Irak?
I mean, what was the begining of all this conflict? If what US and his partners are doing everything wrong, what is the best solution?
I wonder what terrorists want, what if nobody would care about them anymore, would they still be bombing inocent people?
Let's say that each one of you could be one of the G8 representant, what would you do to avoid more inocent killings?
If you ask me, well, is hard to say but I'll probably let all those countries kill them each other and let them be but I'm sure that I'll have people around me telling me that we can have petrol from there and things like that.
A Japanise saying says: stop wasting your time finding who to blame, waste that time finding a solution; so, stop searching who to blame and tell us what would be the solution.

 

what breeds communism in the 60's? poverty.
what breeds terrorism in 2000's? poverty. People gets desperate when there is no guarantee on tomorrow's bread. Desperate attitude leads to desperate action.

 

In that case, teekc, what would be the motivation behind terrorist attacks on London during the G8 summit?

 

Or, why isn't Africa blowing everyone to smitherines?

Eventually, some bomb will go off in France, and one of the reasons given will be the head covering law. Nope, doesn't sound like poverty to me...

 

I think that Osama bin Laden put out a proclamation listing all of the reasons that he was declaring jihad against the West -- things like their secularizing influence and oppression of people.

I suppose that oppression could indicate poverty -- but I think his most common theme was that the West is morally and religiously evil. Oh, and that he hates Jews.

 

Perhaps it's a combination of being poor and a having a religion that has been twisted to serve certain people's purposes. Being poor leads to certain resentment. Some guy will say their poverty is due to the West and Israel (whether true or not). They get angry some more. Same guy says we should fight back. You can go to heaven if you fight, even die for your cause. Voila, terrorists! Of course it's not as simple as that but I'm trying to keep my explanation easy to understand.

 

Desperation need not rational reason for commitment. Here am i worrying about my dinner in the morning; there is he a reputated person telling me my sorry state is a result of western imperialist. i don't need any hardcore evidence to be convinced by this person, i have nothing to lose, something to gain, eternal happiness in fact. Heck why wouldn't i listen to him?

A sensable person, when living a good life, wouldn't strap on bomb and walk around. Why would a sensable, i.e. not insane person, commit suicidal act? The people who direct and organize terrorist act may not poor. It is the people who actually committing the act who are desperate, who has nothing to lose.

Africans were not blowing everyone?
1 - Some Zulus of South African were commiting terrorist acts.
2 - On top of poverty, African nations are also plagued by civil wars, i.e. terrorist acts within their own country. Etopia population was wiped by civil that now you only find younsters there.

[ July 09, 2005, 07:32: Message edited by: teekc ]

 

I find only one solution for those cowardly terrorist who attack innocent people : shoot at sight!

 

Yeah, that'll work.

 

Actually, we (the British) probably did.

OK, I'm not a historian, things are no doubt a lot more complicated than this, and I'm sure a lot of other versions exist.
From a historical point of view, I understand the troubles with the middle east began during the first world war. When the Arabs joined forces with the British & French to drive out the Turkish from Arabia (Jordan, Syria, Israel, Palestine etc), they rather expected to regain their own land. Instead, the French and British had a secret treaty - Sykes-Picot agreement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes-Picot_Agreement
divvying up the middle east between them. As part of this, the state of Palestine was offered up to the Jewish under the Balfour Declaration (As a British Mandate)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_1917
at least partly in order to get their assistance in persuading the US to join in the war.
Later, the British withdrew support for the Balfour declaration and attempted to limit the immigration of Jew's to Palestine, as well as where in Palestine they could settle.
The Jewish objected to this, forming their own Terrorist organisations, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_group which undertook terrorist activities against the British.
This could be seen as one of the few times the British have capitulated to Terrorism, giving rise to the state of Israel and the circle of hatred we see today.

Unfortunately this information is not a great deal of help in the current situation, but is an interesting fact glossed over in (at least my own) education.