Is there an answer to Islamic terrorism?

[marco]

And so beautiful Barcelona joins the list of cities terrorists have attacked. I don't doubt that there are those who will say America and the West are responsible. One of the terrorists apparently wrote of his desire to kill infidels.

I was in Madrid a few weeks ago and had intended to revisit Barcelona and its busy street, Las Ramblas, where the atrocities occurred. So terror is just a breath away, at least here in Europe.

Is it possible for those who want to kill to be educated if not by impious Westerners by Imams? Are those who want to kill "infidels" already known in their home circles? Obviously the scale of this lunacy will grow and we will hear on our screens the fatuous: "They will not win." But they do.

What can we do to ensure "they will not win"? Should the world convert to Islam, at least nominally?

[marco]

The answer is simple enough, the IDF just murdered his 6 year old child for no reason at all.

We see what others want us to see. There are of course horrible happenings in the world that crush our understanding. It is hard to see humanity in the minds of men who get children to execute innocent people before cameras. We are not in Israel when rockets rain down on their cities, often unreported lest the uncircumcised rejoice. When Israelis seek out the rocket sites they discover them in schools and in private houses; they give three clear warnings for people to evacuate the area before they destroy the sites (can we balance this with the other side giving warnings before blowing up a plane?) and sometimes people are prevented forcibly from moving, the better to gain casualties which will then be reported to a waiting, horrified world.

No, it is not all simple, because in such situations some people lose their compassion and see other humans as worthless. There are many reasons for anger, terrorism, sorrow, blame and picking one is no answer. Some of the countries surrounding Israel still behead people or stone them for religious misdemeanours. If you can look your neighbour in the eye, perhaps just a young girl, and throw stones at her of the prescribed weight (not too big so that death is not quick) then what will you not do to a perceived enemy?


One of our smug bits of complacency used to be that these barbaric things happened in the darker quarters of our globe where the date was still the 7th century but today the darkness has visited the cities of the West, and people are killed needlessly, in theatres, at bus stops. And sometimes we look for excuses.

It may be that we should free people from beliefs in gods that demand blood and uphold one single principle: Love thy neighbour.

[marco]

The answer is simple enough, the IDF just murdered his 6 year old child for no reason at all.

We see what others want us to see. There are of course horrible happenings in the world that crush our understanding. It is hard to see humanity in the minds of men who get children to execute innocent people before cameras. We are not in Israel when rockets rain down on their cities, often unreported lest the uncircumcised rejoice. When Israelis seek out the rocket sites they discover them in schools and in private houses; they give three clear warnings for people to evacuate the area before they destroy the sites (can we balance this with the other side giving warnings before blowing up a plane?) and sometimes people are prevented forcibly from moving, the better to gain casualties which will then be reported to a waiting, horrified world.

No, it is not all simple, because in such situations some people lose their compassion and see other humans as worthless. There are many reasons for anger, terrorism, sorrow, blame and picking one is no answer. Some of the countries surrounding Israel still behead people or stone them for religious misdemeanours. If you can look your neighbour in the eye, perhaps just a young girl, and throw stones at her of the prescribed weight (not too big so that death is not quick) then what will you not do to a perceived enemy?


One of our smug bits of complacency used to be that these barbaric things happened in the darker quarters of our globe where the date was still the 7th century but today the darkness has visited the cities of the West, and people are killed needlessly, in theatres, at bus stops. And sometimes we look for excuses.

It may be that we should free people from beliefs in gods that demand blood and uphold one single principle: Love thy neighbour.

[justme2]

The word terrorist is a blanket word that covers a wide range of acts by a wide range of people.

When an IDF sniper shots an eight (8) year old girl in the head while she sits at a UN sponsored classroom desk; is this an act of terrorism-?

When the father of that murdered eight-year-old girl goes mad with grief and straps bombs to his chest and then runs into a crowd of IDF soldiers and detonates this bomb killing himself and the nearby IDF soldiers; is this an act of terrorism-?

I am saying this because I believe we need to clarify in more detail what constitutes a “terrorist� act.

What do you think-?

[marco]

The word terrorist is a blanket word that covers a wide range of acts by a wide range of people.

If we allow it to reach out uncontrollably then of course the word loses meaning. It is generally taken to mean someone who carrries out atrocities for some perceived political end, the acts being done on random people perhaps. The purpose is to spread fear and indeed terror into the general population.


A father who grieves over his dead son and kills many people might be used by some political organisation but I wouldn't regard his murders as terrorism. If he joined a terrorist organisation, then the reason for his acts would be those of the organisation, and that would make him a terrorist.

[justme2]

It is generally taken to mean someone who carrries out atrocities for some perceived political end, the acts being done on random people perhaps. The purpose is to spread fear and indeed terror into the general population.

With that definition in mind, please Google "IDF shooting children"

Once done, tell me; are these acts of terrorism and if not, why not?

Just asking, no animosity intended or implied

[marco]

It is generally taken to mean someone who carrries out atrocities for some perceived political end, the acts being done on random people perhaps. The purpose is to spread fear and indeed terror into the general population.

With that definition in mind, please Google "IDF shooting children"

Once done, tell me; are these acts of terrorism and if not, why not?

Just asking, no animosity intended or implied

The question in the OP asked about dealing with Islamic terrorism. Of course terrorism knows no borders. In the UK people have been known to terrorise those who would not vote in a particular way. You referred me to an article on the IDF. I got this from it:

"The Avivim school bus massacre was a terrorist attack on an Israeli school bus on May 22, 1970 in which 12 Israeli civilians were killed, nine of them children, and 25 were wounded. "

"The Code of Conduct of the Israeli Defense Forces explicitly prohibits targeting non-combatants and dictates proportional force, stating, in part, that "The soldier shall make use of his weaponry and power only for the fulfillment of the mission and solely to the extent required; he will maintain his humanity even in combat. "

In the Israeli conflict children are casualties; it is a depressing situation. The difference would seem to be that one side DELIBERATELY targets children, as in the case above while the other is specifically told NOT to harm children, but children do get killed. One is terrorism; both are deplorable. If Palestinian children are deliberately killed as an example or in revenge, this is terrorism. The problem with deciding is that the propaganda machinery actually uses children to make capital.
When Hamas builds rocket bases under schools, this is an act of terrorism against children. When those children get killed, Hamas bears most of the responsibility.



I share your concern. A dead child is painful to see or imagine, and hurt inspires more hurt. I have no answer to the horrors in the Middle East; the Western interference has done more harm than good there. We replaced bad with worse. But we must find an answer to random terrorist acts that does not merely involve more killing.... shoot the terrorist and pray.

[EarthScienceguy]

What ever happen to the ideas of national sovereignty and rule of law?

The entire role of government is to punish the evil doer. I hope we could all agree that killing others is evil. So it is the role of the government to protect the innocent within their borders.

If a nation or group is threatens the security of those in the nation it the governments responsibility to punish those that threaten that nation. Now does that mean eradicate all of Islam? No because not all of Islam is threatening us. But it does mean to punish those groups that do threaten the security of our nation.

[marco]

If a nation or group is threatens the security of those in the nation it the governments responsibility to punish those that threaten that nation. Now does that mean eradicate all of Islam? No because not all of Islam is threatening us. But it does mean to punish those groups that do threaten the security of our nation.

If bombers are consistently Islamic, then one must make the assumption that if we concentrate on looking at Islamic communities, we will maybe find culprits. During the war Germans in Britain were incarcerated somewhere of the Isle of Man, not because they had done anything wrong, but because it was supposed that Germans might support Germans. Of course if it turns out that Muslim communities regularly hand over suspicious characters to civil authorities, all will be well. We will all be playing on the same side.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 198 by marco]

Yes, our investigative concentration should be on those Islamic communities. I also believe that laws should be changed that any terrorist act should be considered an act of war. Therefore anyone who knows and the act and did not tell authorities would be charged with aiding and abetting the enemy. Aiding and abetting the enemy is considered treason.

Not only could the bomber or mass murderer but also their entire family could also be charged. This would get rid much of the motivation for committing these acts.

As much as I would like to agree with you. I still believe there is a place for rule and of law and due process. I believe that these acts are treated too much like they happen in some sort of vacuum. Where there is just one solitary individual committing this act. Instead of a community of people who knew about the act and supported in the act.

I would be more in favor of changing the laws to widen the prosecutlatory power of the the federal government to prosecute those that are thought to be planning terror events but also any that may know that such a plan is being made.

I would more like to support freedom and liberty for all. This is unlike other wars because we are talking of a religion that has been around for over 1000 years that is unlocalized. Interment camps for these people would be endless. And once freedom is taken from one group, the reasons become smaller to take freedom away from another group and another.

Our only defense against tyranny is the rule of law.

[marco]

.

As much as I would like to agree with you. I still believe there is a place for rule and of law and due process.

I hope I didn't express a preference for illegalities. As you point out our laws do not allow us to do much about the problem; so strengthen our laws. If we consider ourselves at war, then act accordingly.

However, words are worthless; we can be as imaginatively great as we wish, but when a bomb explodes on our pavements we at the mercy not just of terrorists but those who have taken it upon themselves to protect our society, and make laws for our safety. Perhaps, as Lady Macbeth said, we are too full of the milk of human kindness to find an appropriate strategy.