Terrorism

[skier1]

This thread is about how to define the modern terrorist, what their aims are, and how to, if possible, defeat terrorism.

The modern terrorist organization is based off of the model created by a man named Nechaev. Nechaev was a revolutionary against the Imperial Russian government. Nechaev wrote a book about how a terrorist cell operates, and I plan on reading it for my IB extended essay. Basically, a terror network operates in organic sleeper cells, which blend into the populace, undetectable, only to attack out of nowhere and the disappear again. Killing Osama bin Laden won't do anything, since a modern terror cell operates on a hydra model at the top. This means that if you kill the head honcho, two more pop up in his place. Contrary to what some people think, terrorists are actually very smart. In order to run and operate such a complex organization takes immense intellect, especially in order to run a successful organization. What makes terror cells so scary is that you are dealing with a group of highly intelligent people who's only goal is to topple your government. And that is the goal of a terrorist organization: to topple the government.

Sure, one could point out that terror cells tend to attack civilian targets. The World Trade Center could hardly be called a military target, after all. One could also argue that a terrorist state works only to spread fear, since Al Qaeda really has nothing to gain from attacking the U.S. One might conclude that terrorism is retaliatory in nature, not an actual offensive.

Yet the opposite of this is true. The reason terrorists attack civilians is to topple the government. If the terrorists can attack the civilians repeatedly, and the government can't prevent it, the populace starts to grow angry at their government. Since the terrorist organization is not nearly powerful enough to take the government head-on, they do something more astounding: incite civil war. The populace is turned against the government, and then the terrorists' goal is complete. 9/11 was an example of a first tentative attempt. AL Qaeda knows they can't defeat the U.S., but there's a small chance they could anger the populace enough to derail the populace. Al Qaeda has some gains in the immediate area if the U.S. falls. Firstly, Israel loses its primary backer, Something most terrorist groups would consider Christmas coming early. Secondly, a giant imperialist nation stops policing their little region of the world. Thirdly, weak governments held up by the U.S., like the Saudi monarchy, become weak and open to targeting. Terror is an offensive attack, aimed to crush the enemy by turning the enemy against itself.

Terrorism can be stopped, but not easily. Imperial Russia waged a huge war on domestic terror in the 1860's, and won. However, it took them 40 years and countless lives, just to have it spring up again ten years later. The way to defeat a terror cell is to drive terror into their own hearts. If you find a terrorist, kill him, kill anyone who may have been working with him, kill his family and his offspring. Russia did this systematically, and scared the crap out of any would-be terrorists. As new recruitment started drying up, the terrorists started disappearing. The way to stop terrorism is to kill terrorists and their families, and publicize it well.

There is one other way to stop terrorism, but it wouldn't work in our society. This method was exercised by the Soviets. When a terror cell attacked, the government let them, and then just made sure the public didn't find out about it. The terrorists gave up and moved on. This would obviously never work in our society, since the media is so powerful.

Any thoughts/comments/theories/counter-arguments?

[mattis]

skier1 said:

If you find a terrorist, kill him, kill anyone who may have been working with him, kill his family and his offspring. Russia did this systematically, and scared the crap out of any would-be terrorists. As new recruitment started drying up, the terrorists started disappearing. The way to stop terrorism is to kill terrorists and their families, and publicize it well.

a counter-possibility: this could work to their advantage or end in a stalemate. if the public found out our troops were killing people without evidence they were terrorists, this would incite huge arguments, many lawsuits and arrests, and possibly the impeachment of whoever the president is at the time, obviously causing chaos. another thing is that very few terrorists are actually found. most do suicide bombings, and even then, it's very rare that they can be identified.

[skier1]

Well, mattis, this wouldn't be carried out by our troops. It would be carried out ideally by local governments with the U.S. giving a bit of unnannounced aid. The local government wields a kind of influence over the populace the U.S. could not rival. If the U.S. handed out this kind of justice, yes, all hell would break loose. But when the local government does it, the reaction would be completely different. The government represents the people, and therefore the terrorists are being eliminated by the people for the people, or something to that effect.

[mattis]

okay. but still, very few terrorists are actually found. most do suicide bombings, and even then, it's very rare that they can be identified.

[Kevin]

Actually, suicide bombings are a rare occurance... far less common than what the media leads us to believe. In fact, the most suicide bombings by a terrorist group is not from Hamas but rather from a Sri Lankan liberation group.

In my opinion, terrorism will never be defeated. It will merely be covered less by the media, giving the appearance that terrorism has been eradicated. Think about a couple years ago when things in Iraq were intense and heavily covered. We heard a lot about terrorist attacks then. Now that we've "won" (I of course don't actually mean that, but Dubya must think so) the war in Iraq, how often do you hear about terrorist attacks on the news? Not very often.

It all depends on the definition of terrorism as well. Was the American Revolution an act of terrorism? You're damn right it was. Were our founding fathers called terrorists, militants, or radicals? No, they were revolutionaries, patriots, and freedom fighters. Hamas, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups see themselves as freedom fighters, fighting and willing to die for their cause. I'm sure the British considered us terrorists in the late 18th century, but since our government is in chare of our definition of terrorism, we were heroes and revolutionaries.

Something I find funny is that Americans are so anti-terrorism, and yet the US has helped terrorist groups. The contras in Nicaragua, Cuban refugees, and even Afghanis.... all have been helped by the US at some point.

Oh and not exactly on the subject of terrorism, although it does have something to do with it... George W. Bush, in his 5 or so years as President, has borrowed more than $1 trillion from other countries. That's more than all of the other 42 Presidents in US history combined. We're so much in debt trying to fight this "epidemic" of terrorism that we're spending less money on important thinks like education... I'd much rather get some money for college instead of that money going towards capturing suspected terrorists. I could care less about what happens in the Middle East. Let them blow themselves to pieces if they want to.

[Gudamor]

I don't watch the news everyday, but it seems to me that news stories on terrorism in Iraq have been occuring with about the same frequency as they have since we began occupying Iraq.

On the other stuff, I pretty much agree.