Comments Posted By Drongo
Displaying 111 To 120 Of 246 Comments
NEW JIHADI VIDEO GIVES HEART TO TERRORISTS
"Drongo – I agree with virtually everything that you have said, but – unfortunately – yours is an almost “utopian†view"
Sadly, I agree with virtually everything you said, particularly the above.
I was offering an approach that might reduce terrorism without resorting to genocidal wars. I have a fear that if we continue on the treadmill we are walking at the moment we will eventually end up at a point where the more extreme in all our societies will end up being the dominant force. This thread adequately demonstrates what sort of views will come to the fore then.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 5.07.2007 @ 16:09
Just something I'd like to throw into the mix,
Why do people here think that the threat from Jihadi terrorism is increased over the last, say 100 years?
Can these factors be reduced?
We could look at alternative forms of terrorism through the years and look at why they eventually decreased, or did not. Say, IRA, Far Right White Supremacist, German Red Brigades.
Why did they start and why did they slow down?
I think that broadening the description "Terrorism" to include other beliefs than Salafi Jihadis may be instructive.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 5.07.2007 @ 11:25
"Terrorism involving WMDs (and here I mean real WMDs, e.g. nuclear weapons, not a definition used to make it easier to prosecute wanabees) is qualitatively different – it could be a real threat to civilization."
Well, at present they haven't and short of vigorous nuclear controls I don't see what anyone can do to improve our chances of them not managing to get them.
I would, of course, note that to date no terrorist group has even got close to owning a nuke, and that, even if they did get hold of, say, a kiloton level nuke and flattened London, it would hardly be civilization ending anymore than the Hiroshima bomb was civilization ending.
To end civilization you are looking at a general nuclear exchange between great powers.
(Obviously I am not being glib about the massive and horrific loss of life involved, just trying to keep it all in perspective. Virtually nothing terrorists can do could ever be civilization ending)
But you see what I mean about reaching for the worst case scenario. We are talking about a bearded git in a cave releasing the occasional video and Al-Q types bragging about a couple of doctors who set themselves on fire, and we leap from there to nuclear weapons.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 5.07.2007 @ 11:19
"My worry is, that while fighting two wars (one legit, the other one…debatable), will we have the military resources to carry out a third one? Or will we be forced to just lob some cruise missiles at a terrorist training camp?"
Sure you have the military resources. Just don't go to war with them in the "Invade them and occupy them" sense. We're talling punitive attacks, which should be against (a) Terrorist training camps) and (b) The homes and offices of the people in charge of the countries.
In this world, knocking down states is a bad idea because they are so damn hard to put back together. Leave 'em alone but make the retaliation personal to them, the leaders, not general to the population.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 5.07.2007 @ 11:05
I think that we need to come to terms with two things with regard to terrorism;
1) We will always have some people who believe in their ideology so much (whether it is insane or reasonable) that they will be willing to kill innocents.
2) Terrorism is almost an irrelevance to our lives.
I imagine that (1) Is generally accepted, but that (2) would be contentious, but looked at dispassionately, terrorism's effects on our lives (except for the very few directly involved in the attacks in question) is largely economic and convinence based.
I know that stats are extremely tedious and not a sufficient way to deal with this sort of emotional issue, but compare it with real, significant threats to life. Compare it to road deaths, cancer deaths, hell, deaths due to lack of rubberised bathmats and you start to get an idea of the real term risk involved. It is managable and, it it were less emotionally incendiary, it would be broadly ignored like so many other risks to our lives.
But that's the point. Terrorism, by its very nature, is emotionally incendiary. We focus on it, we add our own little horror stories to it. Even if we do try to think statistically, we end up thinking "But what if they got hold of a nuke?!?" And that's where not getting excitied about it counts. Terrorism is a pretty poor tactic at the best of times (I can't think of a good example of a terrorist group that actually achieved its aims, certainly not one that didn't do so *after* renouncing violence). It is rendered almost totally pointless when the perpetrators are regarded not as mad geniuses, but as idiots with a grudge.
So, what's the long term solution? I've got an opinion like anyone else, but I don't claim expertise.
1) Stop building up the terrorists, in media, public statements and even in our own minds. They are sad deluded, usually hopelessly anachronistic savages, generally. Stop painting them as the apocalyptic threat to society that we seem to want them to be. They really aren't. Hell, just call them criminals in the media, it debases them. Don't give them the credit they so badly crave.
2) Yes, hit states that are clearly supporting terrorist groups that attack us hard. I don't regard a state funding a group of idiots to come over and blow up a nightclub as qualitively different from that same state firing a guided missile at that nightclub. I think that the war in Afghanistan was wholly justified (though I think that we should have gone in, shot as many Al-Q as we could and then left again in short order). But hit them in proportion to the attack on us times, say, 10. They blow up a nightclub and we have good evidence that a state was involved, well, blow up, say, 10 government buildings with appropriate 10 minute warnings. Attack the personal property and persons of the governors of those countries, not the populace. But, before you do this, you have to publically expose all of the evidence that points you to the country in question, and make it incontrovertible that they were responsible. If you can't do this then you can't do the airstrikes. Otherwise you end up with more conspiracies drifting about which lead more idiots to conclude that you're the evil one that should be fought.
3) The flip side to that : Don't use the threat of terrorism to feather any other nests, or push any other agendas. Don't use the miniscule threat of terrorism to justify billions in public money being funneled to your mates in security businesses. Don't use it to justify your pet world changing ideologies. Don't use it to justify your (non-specific 'your')preexisting dislike of foreigners. Don't use it to justify giving up Isaelli's a hard time about Palestine. Use it for what it is, a bunch of savages who are living in an imaginary world where their actions actually mean something.
4) Keep doing what we are doing in terms of security. Tap the phones of genuine suspects. Monitor suspicious activities. Arrest, expose and imprison people who actually get beyond the "I wish someone would do something" stage onto the "I should do something" stage. But watch for (3), don't start tapping the phones of your opponents using terrorism as the justification.
5) Above all, don't push people who are on the borderline over the edge. In the long run catching the people who actually plan to do something is a lot less important than stopping people who might want to do something from getting that far. That is not achieved by police action (though that may play its part) it is achieved by making it clear to those on the borderline that our side really does hold the moral highground, that the terrorist's arguments and appeals are shockingly false, and that there is no glory in going that way.
That means that rather than just paying lip service to ethics in politics, foreign policy and our own lives, we have to actually practice what we preach. You have to be so painfully open and honest about your actions and intentions that it is obvious that you are not the bad guy. So, when you do (2) you have to do it openly, regretfully, and in a way that gains the moral high ground. When you imprison people you have to do it in accordance with our values even if it hurts. And above all, avoid (3).
Aned, when all is said and done, and another idiot who *really, really* hates Jews, Gays, Women who show their arms, or who buys into some other historical or moral grievance enough that it justifies blowing up a bunch of school children, remember the initial point (1), You're always going to have these idiots. Regard them as part of the general background cost of being alive in the 21st century.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 5.07.2007 @ 10:11
"Does that clarify things a bit?"
Yes, thanks. It looks like a power easily open to abuse but one which was needed for legitimate reasons.
I'm a bit surprised that the power of pardon isn't required to be ratified by congress though. Wouldn't that prevent the worst abuses while leaving the field clear for worthy pardons. That would require the agreement of both Congress and Executive to overturn decisions made by the judiciary.
Still, not having recently designed a political system I'll bow to the original decision.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 6.07.2007 @ 04:40
"The President’s power of pardon and commutation is absolute. It can be criticized but not by positing the ridiculous notion that it violates “the rule of law.â€"
I'm only an ignorant Brit, but I have always been confused about this one. Why does the President have the ability to pardon anyone? Doesn't it inevitably create a conflict whereby Presidential favourites cannot be brought to justice? That seems to run counter to the checks and balances of the rest of the system.
Take the example of this Marc Rich guy (who I know nothing about). You say that Clinton was paid to pardon him of crimes and so he did. Why was he allowed to?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 3.07.2007 @ 10:05
STOP OVERREACTING TO TERRORISTS?
"So, again, I would propose, that the ONLY reasons we’ve haven’t been hit with the “big oneâ€, just yet is because:"
Nice posts. There is one other theory on why the US hasn't been attacked while the UK, Spain, etc, etc have.
This is the idea that the 911 attacks were more of a matador's cape than a real attempt to defeat the US. Under this theory, Bin Laden et al wanted the US to get bogged down in a nasty guerilla war in Afghanistan. Following this theory they were rudely surprised when the US fought the Afghan war the right way, by empowering local chiefs to fight the war for us, by having a light footprint in country, and by mainly acting as a financier. Unfortunately for us, since then, we have embarked on a mission to fundamentally change Afghanistan which is, I would estimate, doomed to fail. We would have been better off to have left the warlords in charge and let them run the country how they wanted, but there we are.
Of course, if Bin Laden's motive was to bog the US down in an unpopular war with impossible goals in a Muslim country, draining away cash and reputation then the invasion of Iraq would be his wildest dream.
So one possible explaination for the lack of US attacks is that they are simply not needed. The US is acting as he wants it to, and further attacks would not achieve anything. It also explains the pre-US election message of support for Kerry, since Bin Laden is a thouroughly modern communicator he must have known that this would only aid Bush, which would be what was wanted, a direct approach and "No surrender" attitude.
Of course this is all speculation.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 3.07.2007 @ 03:28
"The modern Left does not want to examine this, as it is anathema to multiculturalism and transnational goals: here an ‘oppressed’ group has already put forward its totalitarian goals and end-state and has demonstrated its want to put that to work, but calling them on it means making a value based judgement. Can’t do that if ‘all cultures are equal’"
What utter rubbish. Point me to one commentator who doesn't rate a bunch of torturing murderers as a worse society than a liberal democracy.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 28.06.2007 @ 16:05
Nice piece.
"There have been few sparks generated in the debates – except the ones that lit Ron Paul on fire and sent his campaign up in smoke."
I thought that it was a shame that his point in that debate was so roundly misconstrued.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 26.06.2007 @ 04:27
