Rikzilla: Root causes discussion

[gnome]

(Anyone else welcome to comment also)

Originally posted by Rikzilla:
Of course root causes should be addressed, but not at the point of a gun. Actually the root causes of groups which resort to terrorism Should Never be addressed at all until such groups repudiate the tactic. Just MHO.

This is a reasonable and appealing idea. However, I don't think it is the wisest approach.

I concede the problem of responding to terrorism by evaluating one's policy towards that group creates an incentive to terrorism in other groups that want attention. However, one must look at the differential approach and consider the consequences of the alternative.

Speaking hypothetically, imagine fictional aggrieved country Snorbania. We are mistreating that country in some way (the "root cause" at issue). Some fanatics in Snorbania have given up on peaceful means of stopping it and are engaging in terrorist acts against US citizens.

Clearly, the terrorists are in the wrong and it makes perfect sense to stop them however we can.

BUT, is stomping the terrorists the entire solution? The root cause is still there, driving more of Snorbania's people to terrorism, to replace the ones we kill.

One argues that while defending ourselves against the actual terrorists, it would make sense to address the root cause, in the hopes that fewer terrorists emerge. Especially in cases where we are clearly doing something wrong. If terrorists are blowing up our buildings because we don't give their nation free goodies, there's not a whole lot else we can do. But your statement seems to assume that the root cause is worth addressing under some circumstances.

You argue, at this point, we should not reward Snorbania's terrorism by helping them out with the root cause, as this will incite terrorism in other aggrieved nations. But to simply fight the terrorists without addressing the root cause, is to also generate more terrorists, while at the same time perpetuating a wrong, and failing to approach a resolution.

While it seems to makes morally logical sense, someone considering terrorism is not going to be deterred by threats of being ignored when they felt ignored already.

Another case where this policy can fail is in a situation where most of Snorbania, to set up a new example, is eager to end the violence and come to terms. They begin shutting down some of the terrorism and peace starts to seem possible. At this point however, it is fragile, and if we insist on breaking off all talks at the slightest surge of violence, what that means is any power-hungry opportunist in Snorbania can derail the peace talks by rousing some more violence. Shall we facilitate that with such an inflexible policy?

Alternatives:

1. Address problems in other nations before they result in terrorism, whenever possible.

2. Fight terrorism as terrorism, protect ourselves... but indeed consider the root causes and address that too.

The incentive problem happens when we only address another nation's concerns when they resort to terrorism. Being known for responsiveness to the concerns of other nations under all circumstances... wouldn't that reduce the tendency of fringe nations to resort to terrorism in order to get our attention?

Sorry so wordy... it's something I've wanted to go over for some time, and I've found your input valuable in the past.

[a_unique_person]

How would the US have gained independence then?

[Advocate]

Well since the grievance is that of the entire nation and not just the terrorists, I think it could safely be addressed once the nation has made a good faith effort to capture and prosecute the terrorists including cooperating in international efforts, but only so long as this cooperation continues. However all negotiations concerning addressing the problem would be with the nation itself and never with any group that supports, funds, or endorses the terrorists.

The biggest problem with this is proving that the nation is actually trying to address the terrorism issue and not supporting the terrorists covertly. This is what happened in Palestine. Israel was trying to negotiate with Arafat as representative of the Palestinians with the understanding that he was not supporting the terrorists. It turns out he was. Of course Israel also was lacking in the "good faith" department, but the point remains valid. Any negotiations can break down if one or both sides are not negotiating in good faith.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by gnome
(Anyone else welcome to comment also)



This is a reasonable and appealing idea. However, I don't think it is the wisest approach.

I concede the problem of responding to terrorism by evaluating one's policy towards that group creates an incentive to terrorism in other groups that want attention. However, one must look at the differential approach and consider the consequences of the alternative.

Speaking hypothetically, imagine fictional aggrieved country Snorbania. We are mistreating that country in some way (the "root cause" at issue). Some fanatics in Snorbania have given up on peaceful means of stopping it and are engaging in terrorist acts against US citizens.

Clearly, the terrorists are in the wrong and it makes perfect sense to stop them however we can.

BUT, is stomping the terrorists the entire solution? The root cause is still there, driving more of Snorbania's people to terrorism, to replace the ones we kill.

One argues that while defending ourselves against the actual terrorists, it would make sense to address the root cause, in the hopes that fewer terrorists emerge. Especially in cases where we are clearly doing something wrong. If terrorists are blowing up our buildings because we don't give their nation free goodies, there's not a whole lot else we can do. But your statement seems to assume that the root cause is worth addressing under some circumstances.

You argue, at this point, we should not reward Snorbania's terrorism by helping them out with the root cause, as this will incite terrorism in other aggrieved nations. But to simply fight the terrorists without addressing the root cause, is to also generate more terrorists, while at the same time perpetuating a wrong, and failing to approach a resolution.

While it seems to makes morally logical sense, someone considering terrorism is not going to be deterred by threats of being ignored when they felt ignored already.

Another case where this policy can fail is in a situation where most of Snorbania, to set up a new example, is eager to end the violence and come to terms. They begin shutting down some of the terrorism and peace starts to seem possible. At this point however, it is fragile, and if we insist on breaking off all talks at the slightest surge of violence, what that means is any power-hungry opportunist in Snorbania can derail the peace talks by rousing some more violence. Shall we facilitate that with such an inflexible policy?

Alternatives:

1. Address problems in other nations before they result in terrorism, whenever possible.

2. Fight terrorism as terrorism, protect ourselves... but indeed consider the root causes and address that too.

The incentive problem happens when we only address another nation's concerns when they resort to terrorism. Being known for responsiveness to the concerns of other nations under all circumstances... wouldn't that reduce the tendency of fringe nations to resort to terrorism in order to get our attention?

Sorry so wordy... it's something I've wanted to go over for some time, and I've found your input valuable in the past.

Interesting Gnome,

I agree with #1....we should seek to end any injustice we may cause or accidentally facilitate. But again, not at the point of a gun.

#2. Yes fight terrorists with every breath we take. But terrorism should never be seen to advance a cause...no matter how noble. The people of Snorbania may have a real grievance,...but so do other peoples around the world who are not resorting to murder. Put Snorbania's issues on the back burner of the world until they publicly renounce terrorism and indeed keep the peace. Then reward them by addressing their problems.

-zilla

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
How would the US have gained independence then?

AUP seems to think that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson bombed English women and children at carriage-stops.

-z

[Reginald]

Originally posted by rikzilla


AUP seems to think that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson bombed English women and children at carriage-stops.

-z

No but the IRA did and there were/are people on your side of the pond who still see them as freedom fighters as opposed to terrorists.

[crackmonkey]

Well, they're delusional. We have loonies and criminals just like everyone else.

[Troll]

Originally posted by gnome
(Anyone else welcome to comment also)



This is a reasonable and appealing idea. However, I don't think it is the wisest approach.

I concede the problem of responding to terrorism by evaluating one's policy towards that group creates an incentive to terrorism in other groups that want attention. However, one must look at the differential approach and consider the consequences of the alternative.

Speaking hypothetically, imagine fictional aggrieved country Snorbania. We are mistreating that country in some way (the "root cause" at issue). Some fanatics in Snorbania have given up on peaceful means of stopping it and are engaging in terrorist acts against US citizens.

Clearly, the terrorists are in the wrong and it makes perfect sense to stop them however we can.

BUT, is stomping the terrorists the entire solution? The root cause is still there, driving more of Snorbania's people to terrorism, to replace the ones we kill.

One argues that while defending ourselves against the actual terrorists, it would make sense to address the root cause, in the hopes that fewer terrorists emerge. Especially in cases where we are clearly doing something wrong. If terrorists are blowing up our buildings because we don't give their nation free goodies, there's not a whole lot else we can do. But your statement seems to assume that the root cause is worth addressing under some circumstances.

You argue, at this point, we should not reward Snorbania's terrorism by helping them out with the root cause, as this will incite terrorism in other aggrieved nations. But to simply fight the terrorists without addressing the root cause, is to also generate more terrorists, while at the same time perpetuating a wrong, and failing to approach a resolution.

While it seems to makes morally logical sense, someone considering terrorism is not going to be deterred by threats of being ignored when they felt ignored already.

Another case where this policy can fail is in a situation where most of Snorbania, to set up a new example, is eager to end the violence and come to terms. They begin shutting down some of the terrorism and peace starts to seem possible. At this point however, it is fragile, and if we insist on breaking off all talks at the slightest surge of violence, what that means is any power-hungry opportunist in Snorbania can derail the peace talks by rousing some more violence. Shall we facilitate that with such an inflexible policy?

Alternatives:

1. Address problems in other nations before they result in terrorism, whenever possible.

2. Fight terrorism as terrorism, protect ourselves... but indeed consider the root causes and address that too.

The incentive problem happens when we only address another nation's concerns when they resort to terrorism. Being known for responsiveness to the concerns of other nations under all circumstances... wouldn't that reduce the tendency of fringe nations to resort to terrorism in order to get our attention?

Sorry so wordy... it's something I've wanted to go over for some time, and I've found your input valuable in the past.

is this a joke of a post to gain added points towards something?

You seem to be manipulating the words in ordr to form your thesis

[Troll]

Originally posted by Reginald


No but the IRA did and there were/are people on your side of the pond who still see them as freedom fighters as opposed to terrorists.

and people on "your side of the pond" views them as what? Americans wanting liberty?

[Reginald]

Originally posted by Troll


and people on "your side of the pond" views them as what? Americans wanting liberty?

Dont be so ridiculous.

They were terrorists. (some still are) Just like the loyalist Terrorists who opposed them.

All funding of terrorists is wrong, we have all got our skeletons in the cupboard in this regard.

I like the idea of a list of outlawed organisations, people funding these organisations should be punished, irrespective of the country they fund from, The Uk is just as guilty, we even had idiots going and fighting with the Talibahn!

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Reginald:
No but the IRA did and there were/are people on your side of the pond who still see them as freedom fighters as opposed to terrorists.

Ted Kennedy and the rest of his disfunctional clan, for instance. And it's not as if some of "The Guardian" reading classes in the UK don't view the IRA as freedom fighters either.

[iain]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Ted Kennedy and the rest of his disfunctional clan, for instance. And it's not as if some of "The Guardian" reading classes in the UK don't view the IRA as freedom fighters either. There are people in the UK who see the cause of the IRA as just - i.e. they support NI being returned to Ireland.

I don't there are a significant number of people who support terrorism as the way to achieve that.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by iain:
There are people in the UK who see the cause of the IRA as just - i.e. they support NI being returned to Ireland.

I don't there are a significant number of people who support terrorism as the way to achieve that.

Ditto people in Ireland and Irish Americans.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by iain
There are people in the UK who see the cause of the IRA as just - i.e. they support NI being returned to Ireland.

I don't there are a significant number of people who support terrorism as the way to achieve that.

I agree that the cause the IRA professes to fight for is just, but I find their methods dispicable--including the way they, like the loyalists, have got their hands into racketeering, prostitution, and the like.

But I have a vague memory that it's just to take violent action against an oppressive state? Not that I necessarily agree with that position...

[patnray]

It would be a mistake to simply ignore the terrorists. One must persue them and make an effort to prevent violence. But it also a mistake to ignore the conditions that foster support for the terrorists. Addressing the underlying issues (doing the right thing) is not caving into terrorism. And if you refuse to assist moderate people until the last radical is silent you HAVE given in to terrorists by letting the crazies to set the agenda.

IMHO it would be prudent to provide unconditional assistance to moderate groups who renounce terrorism. Work with them to improve their lot and show their compatriots that there is a path to a better life. Build a population that has something to lose...

In the real world this is a hard task. There is corruption, distrust, hatred, extorsion. There are those who will twist any action into something else. One must chose a path, and a group to work with, and stick to it, regardless of attempts by others to derail your effort, distract you, or bully your partners. If you can help those who work with you make a better life for themselves, you have a chance to break the cycle of violence, retaliation, and hopelessness.

It is easier to just join in the cycle of violence and try to "solve" the problems by force alone, to pick an easy target, like Iraq, and blast away.

Real peace will require hard work. It is sad that none of the major players are working as hard at peace as they are at war...

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Reginald


I like the idea of a list of outlawed organisations, people funding these organisations should be punished, irrespective of the country they fund from, The Uk is just as guilty, we even had idiots going and fighting with the Talibahn!

Er.....the guys who went to fight for the Taliban did so before 9/11. How can you control a free citizen's choices after they leave the jurisdiction?

Mind you we seem to have given sanctuary to Algerian terrorists despite warnings from the French and Algerians!

[gnome]

Originally posted by Troll
is this a joke of a post to gain added points towards something?

You seem to be manipulating the words in ordr to form your thesis

No, I'm perfectly serious. I think Rikzilla would agree that I've accurately and fairly outlined our disagreement? If not, I'd consider rephrasing it.