what do you think is the solution to terrorism in the US

[fais2000]

Just wanted to see what you guys think is the answer.

fas

[msc3]

Take out the terrorists before they act.

[DrRob]

Fas,

It's a completely different type of war than we've previously experienced. We're not conquering islands, taking out bridges and buildings; there's no front line to defend or move forward. The front line is all around us. This war requires a high level of intelligence on the home front as well as abroad. We need not only the cooperation of all our own government agencies working together, but probably more importantly the assistance of foreign nations, especially the Arab Muslim nations.

We want Osama bin Laden; getting him is important, but that won't end terrorism. I actually think it will escalate it. here's why:

If caught, he will become a martyr for his cause. It will spawn concerted support by the militant terrorist organizations to further terrorist action. In fact, I could see him actually giving himself up for that purpose. I'm certainly comparing him to Jesus Christ, but after Our Lord was martyred, it started a furvor for the spread of Christianity around the world. Martyrdom would likely work in bin Laden's favor, uniting the terrorist groups.

We had better be prepared... , and everyone watch each others backside.

[bobafett]

I dont see bin ladin giving his own life for his cause. he's a suck f**ker alright, but look at how he's manipulated people and sent them off to suicide instead of himself. he's in it as much to reap the rewards (no one noticed how he shorted MSDW, etc. a few days prior...hofully the SEC can seize the accounts) as he is to ruin his enemies.

There is no simple solution. this will definetly be a very quiet, and will have to be a VERY methodical and drawn out war. there is no public bombing to appease the public (hopfully)...no graphic or glamorous answer to it.

--Dan

[Need4Spd]

We had better be prepared... , and everyone watch each others backside.

Agreed, but ironically, at the same time, a lot of groups are still calling for gun control and/or banning all U.S. citizens from owning guns. Now I seriously doubt that an armed citizenry will stop terrorists from planting bombs, but that still seems like a step in the wrong direction at the wrong time.

[DrRob]

Need4Spd,

I heard a recent quote, don't remember where (maybe on this board), which said, to paraphrase, "Give everyone who flies a gun , and the terrorists in a plane won't stand a chance". Must have been a Texan who quoted that!

Seriously, I believe as you do that gun control advocates should silence themselves for a while. As a handgun owner (both my wife and I have permits) and member and supporter of the NRA, I believe in the right of Americans to bear arms. Of course, their use should be for defense only, and may be of limited value facing terrorist actions, but nonetheless, it does give us some peace of mind that we're able to defend ourselves if the need arises.

[VanCooper]

Not only should they bring back air marshals but flight attendants and pilots should be trained to handle firearms and they should go as far as having hand guns or stun guns onboard the plane for use if someone tries to attack or hijack a plane

P.S Think about it though, if you have a gun, shoot and miss your target and it makes a hole through the plane's fuselage, that would be bad...therefore stun guns or tazers should be used

[Need4Spd]

Tazers or stun devices should be adequate (as opposed to guns, which like you point out, could be disasterous in and of themselves), along with training that requires the flight crew never to give up control of the aircraft, even if at peril to the plane or passengers (like if there's the threat of a bomb), and reinforced cockpit doors. Despite the heightened efforts, it seems impossible to stop determined hijackers from smuggling knives on board, especially since they can be made of non-metallic substances, and especially if they have help from someone on a ground crew. How about business travelers taking kevlar/titanium shelled laptops? You could use it as a shield against a knife-wielding hijacker.

[MEnthusiast]

Fas,
Good question. We all know the answer isnt easy. I wish it were.

Let me start out by saying with respect to the recent terrorist attacks in the USA- there needs to be a strong, forceful but measured "reaction". To not do this would invite more terrorism.

Thats basically the short term.

On the long term I think different action is needed- otherwise we will be trapped in an endless and seemingly senseless cycle of violence. We need to examine why people would want to strap explosives to theirselves, engage in suicide missions, and hurt innocent people.

Im no expert and I think most people want to be happy and live their lives (there are always a few bad apples) . I have a sense that these are largely acts of despiration. Desperate people do desperate things. We need to understand why these people feel this way and what can we- and what can they- do about it. We need to do this in a way that does not invite more attacks whenever someone has a problem with our policies though.

So on the long term we need a plan to bring prosperity to this region and show the world that we can cooperate, respect each others beliefs- maybe one day get comfortable to have a chuckle at each others' expense- and we can all prosper together. The alternative is something that is very ugly.

but bottom line is- short term is hold on to your hat time. I wish it wasnt so- but it is.

[fais2000]

I have a very simple solution in my opinion. It has two stages.

First: The US should get out of the middle east. period. That means out of israel, out of Saudi. No assistance, no embargo's, just mind our own business. Let them starve and dont help them, let them fight and dont fund them. But keep an open trade policy, so dont shut any of them off. That's what most of the people with anti-american sentiment want, and i think it is justified as long as they are not killing anyone or hurting a single sole.If a country asks for assistance, tell them no, take care of your own country, becuase your terrorists will come **** on our terrirtory.

That's it. I guarantee we will never see any terrorism here again.

second: payback. Kill bin laden. He will be happy becuae he will die a martyr (so he thinks), and we will be happy we got revenge. Also kill anybody who is associated with this, they will all die happy (even if there fate holds something not so good for them).


That's it, that is all you need.

opinions?
fas

[johann]

Fas,

Your suggestion sounds sane but is it really that easy?

Cheers,
/Johan

[kees]

Fas,

I think your idea is good in concept, however may not work in reality. The whole situation reminds me of bully situations in school, where if you give them their way, they will still not be happy and will find another reason to come after you.

Also, if the USA (and the EU) withdraw from Israel, it will immediately escalate to allout war in the Middle East. Will the many Jewish people based in the USA (a very powerful vote on the Eastcoast) allow that to happen? I think the first US president to suggest that will be handed back his head on a platter by his own citizens.

If the USA withdraws from the Middle East, the OPEC countries will very likely revert to their old tricks of rather selling small quantities of oil at high prices than large quantities at lower prices. This will mean that the USA and the EU will very quickly start running low on oil. Not a problem as such, if they can find ways of limiting the amount of reliance on oil...an electric M5 anyone?

Just my $0.02

/Kees

[MEnthusiast]

Fas,
your idea has great intentions but I dont think it is workable.

1- the terrorist attacks are part of a policy to get the USA out of the middle east. if we withdraw- they win and even worse- it sends a message that the usa is a paper tiger and will cow tow to anyone who threatens it. the usa's policy is to do what it feels is best for its national interest. that doesnt mean the USA is always right- but to withdraw from the middle east would be a slippery slope to withdrawal from everywhere. this kind of isolationism could end up causing a true WWIII

2- you cant withdraw and not withdraw from trade or aid. its one or the other. if its withdrawal- its a full scale deal- no nothing- no mail, no phones or communications, etc. no diplomatic relations. no nothing. IMHO this is a surefire way to start WWIII.

I know little of the history of the region but to me it seems that we will need to look at the situation from many points of view. A good ultimate solution would leave each side feeling a little bummed but not humiliated nor feeling the need to continue to fight.