Originally Posted by Rossclot

There is actually a lot you can do to end "terrorism" and none of them involves using weapons or violence.

Force choke? Im all for it.

Originally Posted by reeves

Force choke? Im all for it.

Sounds like a plan.

To those who think the solution to terrorism is just to be "nice" to everyone, it shows a serious lack of understanding about what motivates most terrorists. For example, the latest Al Qaeda attempt on Christmas Day was done by a very well educated man (Engineer who attended University from Britain) and he was from a well off family (his father is a VERY successful banker in Nigeria). Obviously he was not poor and stupid, but had managed to get radicalized, most likely while in Britain.

While a million excuses are given by terrorists and their apologists, citing current grievances, past grievances, western decadence, arrogance, etc. etc. the bottom line is that it is all about the intolerance of the terrorists and their backers.

In Huzaifa's post, he said a lot of things that shed light on the motivations of terrorists and the way different cultural views influence those motivations, but then he topped it off with saying that the easiest solution is that everyone should be "nice", which totally misses the point. People don't decide to bomb a plane because someone was rude to them.

While yes we should all be tolerant and understanding, it is not enough for us to be tolerant. We need to make sure that we encourage moderates in the communities from which these groups come from to spread tolerance and reject extremism.

In a purely hypothetical example (I don't mean this to be personal at all, even though I'm using a name because of his post), were Huzaifa to encounter someone else who was absolutely disgusted by peoples tendency to drink, he should encourage the person to be understanding and abstain from drinking in their own lives but not judge others for acting in a certain way. If the person does not see things in the tolerant way Huzaifa does, they could find themselves a target of radicalization.

Part of why understanding terrorism and its roots becomes so complicated is because there are so many different levels of involvement, that span the entire spectrum of human wealth and knowledge.

From the ignorant poor and naive village boys who perpetrated the Mumbai terror attacks (the one survivor that was captured had been SOLD to LeT by the father and was brainwashed) to the more experienced handlers and radical religious leaders who corrupt holy messages for their own gains, to the state level where for geo-political reasons they support terror or instability in other regions. Each of these is a generalization, and should be taken as such.

Additionally, as many pointed out when Bush coined the name "War on Terror", terrorism is a tactic. The solution then is to show that, as a tactic, terrorism does not pay. The key is not to be silent in the face of terror. Don't excuse a terrorist act because it is given the aura of legitimacy. There is NO valid reason for terrorism. If people are fighting for their freedom, there are other ways to get it, and in most cases, a peaceful path to independence is quicker and less painful.

As the economic situation improves, people throughout impoverished regions open their own businesses, have families, and actually have something to live for and something to lose, the pool of "potential terrorists" decreases. (note -- poverty does not cause terror, but it can make people susceptible to other factors which do)
As more and more religious leaders denounce the frauds and more communities become aware of extremists within their midst, the situation improves. The father of the would-be christmas day bomber himself alerted the US weeks ago that he feared his son had become radicalized -- this is a good sign!

Anyways... thats my 5 cents.

Oh, and to the original poster, you cannot live your life afraid of disasters. There are too many things to be afraid of to pay attention to them all. If you are going to be afraid of a terror attack, you may as well also worry about a school shooter, random mugging, massive fire, being hit by a car, etc. etc. It is just not worth it.

Another key point, is to be aware that the issues are a lot more complex then "this group of people is dangerous" and be confident that we have competent authorities who can and do protect us. Don't start hatching plots to become a vigilante in our own community, because there are far more experienced people out there taking care of us.

Just for the record, I wasn't being serious when I said be nice to people...

Terrorism is motivated by greed and opportunity. People see the opportunity to benefit from the grievances of the world and find whatever means possible to justify it. State sponsored terrorism is a byproduct of unstable political factions seeking to divert attention away from their own problems by instigating situations in other states.

In any case, terrorism isn't unintelligent and random. Targets and attacks are carefully and meticulously orchestrated. The places that are hit are not random targets, and as such it is easier to predict where terrorists plan to strike.

Attacking Canada holds no benefit to anyone. Canada is not an interventionist state, so terrorism associated with cultural groups generally use Canada as a place of preparation, rather than a place to attack. Domestic terrorism is always a threat in any country, but in today's world people are more worried about global warfare than Quebec's separation, so we don't particularly need to worry about the FLQ.

In any case, we have one of the world's premier counter-terrorist teams in JTF-2, and a good intelligence network led by CSIS and the RCMP.

In short, we're not going to get bombed anytime soon in the style of global terrorism.

Originally Posted by rlevitin

. Obviously he was not poor and stupid, but had managed to get radicalized, most likely while in Britain.

I think he already had strong anti American views even back home; There are some who say that he got radicalized while at boarding school in Togo and first started to show signs. But then there are others who recall him as moderate and pacifist. I'm really looking forward to investigation into his past to figure where along the line he crossed the line between being critical of USA to being radical enough to void Grad School and go to Yemen to study Islam.

But oddly enough even Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al Zahwari are from privileged backgrounds

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/de...f-plane-bomber

The solution then is to show that, as a tactic, terrorism does not pay. The key is not to be silent in the face of terror. Don't excuse a terrorist act because it is given the aura of legitimacy. There is NO valid reason for terrorism. If people are fighting for their freedom, there are other ways to get it, and in most cases, a peaceful path to independence is quicker and less painful.

I agree with most of what you said, except this little bit. It is easy to think like an idealist and believe from thousands of miles away that the major standoffs in the world can be solved by "peaceful negotiations" and to think that both or one party is being irrational by resorting to violent tactics. However if you are IN that situation living a life you perceive as one of oppression, conflict & usually poverty its a much different ball game; patience starts to fade rather easily and hence it is incredibly easy for the radical elements in the society to recruit people for a more proactive change. I've lived 18 years in a third world country so I have a tiny bit of perspective of what life is really like for the Mumbai bombers for example and how they could have been convinced to sell themselves off as an act of altruism for their family & well waging war against "enemies of Islam who want to wipe out Pakistan etc etc etc"(According to one account the ringleaders promised to pay the terrorist's family a good deal of money)
Palestine probably is another good example, but I really don't want to get into that.

I'm not suggesting that it makes their acts legitimate, but we cannot simply expect everyone to share the belief that there is a peaceful path to independence when they are being constantly manipulated by their "society" to think there is no hope. It almost goes against basic human nature, we have been fighting amongst each other for tens of thousands of years. Can you by any chance please list any examples of a major conflict being solved "without" any violence and by the aforementioned peaceful means?

Plus there is the theory that explains terrorist acts as a form of guerilla warfare in Gwyenne Dyers book "War"; But I recall your article in the Sil annnd I don't think you are his biggest fan so I'll avoid that!

Originally Posted by deadpool

In any case, we have one of the world's premier counter-terrorist teams in JTF-2, and a good intelligence network led by CSIS and the RCMP.

In short, we're not going to get bombed anytime soon in the style of global terrorism.

Well but there are some radical people out there who don't like Canada's support of American War Efforts and are critical of the view that their mission is "peacekeeping". Atleast, that's what I infer from reading the accounts of the Toronto 18 trials.

p.s Rohan: There goes my promise of NO long diatribes on todays date

The peacekeeping misnomer pisses me off. People do not volunteer for combat positions to have their hands tied by a misguided society creating military policy from the privacy of their own desk. Canadian soldiers have died over the years because of the Liberal party's PR spin of peacekeeping because military budgets are kept low.

The Canadian military budget is 1.1% of the GDP of Canada; ridiculously low compared to the amount of military activity that Canadian soldiers have taken part in over the years for the UN, NATO and in Afghanistan.

I for one believe that the Canadian military budget should be 3 times as much, with a specific focus on training and development of troops and their families. The best way we can do this is to have a military like the UK where focus is on discipline and training. It's why the British are considered to be among the most elite fighting forces in the world.

no way am I touching this topic

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

I agree with most of what you said, except this little bit. It is easy to think like an idealist and believe from thousands of miles away that the major standoffs in the world can be solved by "peaceful negotiations" and to think that both or one party is being irrational by resorting to violent tactics. However if you are IN that situation living a life you perceive as one of oppression, conflict & usually poverty its a much different ball game; patience starts to fade rather easily and hence it is incredibly easy for the radical elements in the society to recruit people for a more proactive change. I've lived 18 years in a third world country so I have a tiny bit of perspective of what life is really like for the Mumbai bombers for example and how they could have been convinced to sell themselves off as an act of altruism for their family & well waging war against "enemies of Islam who want to wipe out Pakistan etc etc etc"(According to one account the ringleaders promised to pay the terrorist's family a good deal of money)

Palestine probably is another good example, but I really don't want to get into that.

I'm not suggesting that it makes their acts legitimate, but we cannot simply expect everyone to share the belief that there is a peaceful path to independence when they are being constantly manipulated by their "society" to think there is no hope. It almost goes against basic human nature, we have been fighting amongst each other for tens of thousands of years. Can you by any chance please list any examples of a major conflict being solved "without" any violence and by the aforementioned peaceful means?

Plus there is the theory that explains terrorist acts as a form of guerilla warfare in Gwyenne Dyers book "War"; But I recall your article in the Sil annnd I don't think you are his biggest fan so I'll avoid that!

I'll agree with you that "peace" in the sense of just lying back and taking it is not always an option. Sometimes people and countries are left with no choice but to resort to violence. That being said, resistance against a military or paramilitary force cannot be compared to deliberate terrorist attacks against civilians.

I think that is the crucial dividing line between legitimate and illegitimate actions -- to further clarify, I think that intentions matter. As much as "collateral damage" is a cynical and sometimes overused term, I think that it is a valid factor that needs to be taken into account.

As for the "it is natural for an occupied people to resort to terror" meme, an oft-cited example showing this is not the case is Tibet and China. I'll admit up front that I don't know too much about that particular conflict, but I do know vaguely that China is brutally occupying Tibet and the Tibetans have NOT resorted to terrorism.

Ideally, if the West was serious about fighting terror, they should support the Tibetans and show that non-violence also reaps rewards... unfortunately, part of the reason terrorism is so prevalent today is exactly because it has proven to be such an effective tactic at getting the worlds attention.

It's too bad I am away for a semester for co-op, I'd be interested in sitting down with you sometime and just talking politics for a while. I think it could be a very interesting discussion!

Let's face one very simple fact: the Christmas Day bomber succeeded in his mission. The bomb does not have to go off for the terrorists to win. The bomb only needs to get on the plane, or into the airport, or into the mind of the right reporter. Once news of attempted terrorism hits, the terrorists win. Look at the line-ups that they created over the holidays as people tried to get home to see friends and family. They have invoked terror without taking a single life.

The fact of the matter is that there will likely always be extremists who want to kill innocent people. If we all get antsy every time an attempt is made, we are going to spend our whole lives afraid. Even with all the new airport security measures, these things continue to happen. Do you think the new security measures brought on after the Christmas bomber's attempt are permanent? Highly unlikely. They will stay in force for a few weeks, and then we will settle into our old routine, opening the door for someone else to step in and start the whole thing over again.

Long story short, live your life. If something is going to happen to you, there's not a whole lot you can do about it. Enjoy what you're doing now, and what you plan to do tomorrow, and don't plan your life around terrorist events.

Originally Posted by sniderj

Let's face one very simple fact: the Christmas Day bomber succeeded in his mission.

I would hardly call failing to explode, getting third-degree burns to your crotch, and getting punched in the face by a huge Dutch guy a success.

Originally Posted by rlevitin

Ideally, if the West was serious about fighting terror, they should support the Tibetans and show that non-violence also reaps rewards... unfortunately, part of the reason terrorism is so prevalent today is exactly because it has proven to be such an effective tactic at getting the worlds attention.

Yes, but where is the benefit in that?

Originally Posted by Ownaginatios

I would hardly call failing to explode, getting third-degree burns to your crotch, and getting punched in the face by a huge Dutch guy a success.

If you could be bothered reading the rest of my post, you'd understand my statement. Also, the alternative success was dying, and I'd personally rather be punched in the face, even if it is by a huge Dutch guy.

We are McMaster.
There is nothing to terrorize.

Except for the nuclear reactor in the middle of campus?

Originally Posted by michelle

Except for the nuclear reactor in the middle of campus?

Well people seem to have the wrong idea about the nuclear reactor. There is a HUGE difference between that research reactor and having the technology to manufacture weapons grade uranium. Ever wondered why it is taking all that long for N.Korea & Iran to obtain nuclear bombs? Well because the skill/technology/human expertise required to make them isn't easy to obtain. At best IF the so called terrorists manage to obtain material from in there bypassing the amount of security it requires to get into the restricted storage areas, it'll take a large amount just to create a "dirty bomb". And a dirty bomb is just more of a panic tool, it doesn't do all that much of a damage hypothetically, but even then Dirty bomb requires a certain group of Isotopes that Mac Reactor might not have or might not EVER had in its history.But never mind any of that, a Dirty bomb is an unprecedented theory that the Media has, no one has actually ever made or used one!

Any budding terrorists are much better of obtaining uranium from a Russian/African black market! Heck, all it takes are materials from Canadian tyre(ammonia, White glue & prescription drugs like nitroglycerin).

I know its a scary and ominous looking building but its not that easy to use it for terrorism purposes.

The only thing I can imagine is a potential terrorist graduating with a degree in nuclear physics and using the knowledge gained from possibly researching this stuff to aid a terrorist cause. But that's alot of hypotheticals jumbled together and most importantly you can't deny someone an education or try and judge their motives for getting an education can you?

Here's the thread where it was previously discussed: http://www.macinsiders.com/showthread.php?t=2086 2&