Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The easy solution for the war on terror?

The easy solution for the war on terror?
Thread Tools
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2004, 10:00 PM
 
Whether we like it or not, the suffering of the Palestinians is shared by more than a billion Arabs and Muslims. This fact has been manipulated by terrorist organizations and countries to gain recruits for their evil causes. By working to solve the Palestinian/Israeli conflict the United States can neutralize the most powerful recruiting tool available to terrorists.

There are only four million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. The world has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the war on terror. Spending a fraction of that money on improving the lives of the Palestinians and on bringing peace to Palestine and Israel will go a long way to winning the global war on terror.


That's a cut&paste from a website which I will not disclose. yet.

Do you think there's any merit to that line of thinking?

I think there is - in principle - but the manner by which it could be accomplished would be the sticking point.
     
demograph68
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2004, 10:11 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
but the manner by which it could be accomplished would be the sticking point.
Obviously, though what do we have to lose?
     
placebo1969
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Washington (the state) USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2004, 10:27 PM
 
I found the website. Do I get a cookie?

(K. Nawash)
     
AKcrab
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2004, 10:28 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Do you think there's any merit to that line of thinking?
I certainly do, but only if we could get Hamas to give up the whole "drive Israel into the sea" thing.
     
itai195
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cupertino, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2004, 11:01 PM
 
In terms of eliminating a recruiting tool for terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda, I completely agree that solving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would be a big help. But I don't know that throwing money around is going to solve the problem.
     
Krusty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2004, 11:22 PM
 
Just a quick show of hands. Who here doesn't how utterly simple it is to trace a quote by just taking a long snippet, enclosing it in quotation marks, and google searching it. Takes you right to the source, usually,

Anyway, to answer the question, I don't know. The Palestinian situation is a rallying point for the Muslim world BUT ... in the absence of that situation, would terrorist organizations just fold up and lose support ?? Not sure of the answer to that ... if you actually read what organizations like al-Qaeda say, not the words and opinions put in to their mouths by others (e.g. "they hate freedom"), you'll see a few more points that are sticking in their craws than just Palestine.
     
spiky_dog
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Plainview, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 01:09 AM
 
Originally posted by Krusty:
if you actually read what organizations like al-Qaeda say, not the words and opinions put in to their mouths by others (e.g. "they hate freedom"), you'll see a few more points that are sticking in their craws than just Palestine.
indeed. and those issues (support of corrupt govts such as saudi arabia's) are also ones we should take care of.
     
Spliffdaddy  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 01:27 AM
 
got your PM, vmarks. your inbox is full or you would have recieved a rather good reply. which was lost, even though it was supposed to save a copy for me.

But anyways, you make a lot of sense.

When I was 3 I remember hearing about gorillas fighting Israelis in Gaza. I'm 38, now. I still hear the same thing. Only they're not hairy primates, as I once thought.

After decades of fighting, it surely wouldn't be 'appeasement' to put an end to it. I think it's called a 'truce' - after both parties get their point across, that is.

It would be a hard sell to convince Arabs and Muslims that the Jews were the root cause of their problems if the Jews (well, Israel) made a bold offer of sovereignty to the so-called Palestinian state.

I'm certain it wouldn't govern itself very well, however.

Worst case; nuke and pave Palestine. Nobody would offer much opposition. Sovereignty has it's downsides.
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 06:47 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Worst case; nuke and pave Palestine. Nobody would offer much opposition. Sovereignty has it's downsides.
Indeed that would be a worst-case-scenario, for ... Israel,too. It would lead not only to making life nearly impossible in Israel and in Gaza and Westbank, thanks to radioactivity, but it would also lead to inner-destruction of Israel, because most of the israelis believe in Israel as a safe-haven for jews that survived or fear racial prosecution, and their belief in Israel would fade away, if Israel transformed itself to a genocide-commiting-country.

Taliesin
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 09:45 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
That's a cut&paste from a website which I will not disclose. yet.

Do you think there's any merit to that line of thinking?

I think there is - in principle - but the manner by which it could be accomplished would be the sticking point.
Appease terrorists...bah.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 10:25 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Do you think there's any merit to that line of thinking?

I think there is - in principle - but the manner by which it could be accomplished would be the sticking point.
I don't know if it would work; certainly that's what the terrorists claim to want, but there is also evidence that would suggest otherwise (for example, the fact that al-Qaeda has never once struck against Israel).

Either way, the real question is in how to implement this. Abandoning Israel is not an acceptable solution; there must be a way for the two nations to coexist. If the terrorists are willing to accept this -and I don't think they are- then it stands a chance.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 10:33 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
There are only four million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. The world has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the war on terror. Spending a fraction of that money on improving the lives of the Palestinians and on bringing peace to Palestine and Israel will go a long way to winning the global war on terror.[/i]

That's a cut&paste from a website which I will not disclose. yet.

Do you think there's any merit to that line of thinking?

I think there is - in principle - but the manner by which it could be accomplished would be the sticking point.
Absolutely there is merit to that line of thinking. This is what many of us have been agruing since September 12, 2001. Although, I would hardly call this the "easy solution". It will certainly be more difficult than bombing the crap out of them.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 10:34 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
After decades of fighting, it surely wouldn't be 'appeasement' to put an end to it. I think it's called a 'truce' - after both parties get their point across, that is.
We might be able to make a liberal out of you yet!
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 10:40 AM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
Either way, the real question is in how to implement this. Abandoning Israel is not an acceptable solution; there must be a way for the two nations to coexist. If the terrorists are willing to accept this -and I don't think they are- then it stands a chance.
I don't think that we will ever see Israel and Palestine coexisting. If we ever do see the emergence of a Palestinian nation, I fear there will always be territorial conflicts between the two nations. Two separate and religious states with a long history of religious conflict will never be able to sit side by side.

I think the only solution is Israelstine where both sides have representation in a government that recognizes both people and religions. Will only work though if hardliners on both sides are sidelined.
     
macvillage.net
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 11:02 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:

Do you think there's any merit to that line of thinking?

I think there is - in principle - but the manner by which it could be accomplished would be the sticking point.
An insightful question. Especially Pt 2.

I'm short on time, so I summarize:

Yes, there is merit.

1. cheaper

2. lets face it... all these years later, there's been 0 progress. In reality, it's regression. Negative progress.


I don't think it's a cure though. It would steal the thunder from terrorists, and severely hamper their recruiting abilities. As well as their motivation. So it would most likely in the long term (+5 years) result in a drastic decrease in violence from both sides.... but it's still not a cure.

If your going to cure the problem (which I assume is your goal, based on your mission prompt)... there's still the problem of corrupt biggotry in power on both sides. You have innately good people living as civilians on both sides. But the corruption of leadership leads to turmoil and large scale combat that we see. If you want to remove the problem, you have to put an end to the current governments.

Otherwise, you end up with Germany after WWI... weakened by treaties but still able to build a mega-army in just a few years for WWII. You would be doing the same thing. Cutting the power, but leaving the potential.


If you want to cure the problem, you would have to do a 'regime change' on both sides. That's just the sad fact. Remove the problem of corrupt individuals who want nothing more than land/money/genocide... and install a more tolerant government based on the civilian population. Restructured to ensure it can't slip over again. And ensure enough integration of the two states (if they are made independant states, rather than the less perfered unified state option) so that they cooperate.

If I were in charge of that operation, one of the first things I'd make sure happened was secure a trade deal between the two. That would help them both rebound economically, and ensure they have some reliance upon each other. Otherwise, they can just build a wall (figuratively speaking) and let tensions build again.

Look at Germany again: Post WWII Berlin. Look at Berlin today. There's probibly a better example of this, I just can't think of one off hand.

1. Remove fuel from terrorists
2. Remove governments who fuel terrorism/hatred
3. Install government who values humanity, rather than ____ (insert religion/race)
4. Build reliance on each other.

Infrustructure is somewhat there in the region. It's not like Afganistan. And unlike Iraq, there are many capable leaders avilable who haven't been killed by Saddam. Problem is they will never rise to the top on their own. Not with the current leadership on both sides currently in place.


The current governments have 0 chance on ever co-existing. But the people do.

Now the question I ask in return:

What's more important: the governments? Or the people?

Originally posted by placebo1969:
I found the website. Do I get a cookie?

(K. Nawash)
No, Google does

Originally posted by dcolton:
Appease terrorists...bah.
It's not appeasement. This has been the goal long before terrorism ever entered the picture.

A man tries to kill himself with drugs, and fails (most sucides fail the first time). Few years later, he hijacks a car. In persuit, he's shot by a cop. The cop finds a suicide note on the body later, saying he did this to kill himself.

Did the cop appease the criminal? *Or* did the cop do his job?
     
Spliffdaddy  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 11:25 AM
 
The website was www.freemuslims.org
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:47 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,