Preventing terrorism

[sorrowmonkey]

How can we prevent terrorism?

So far, I really only three answers being discussed:

1. Don't prevent terrorism, it gets us what we want.
2. Find terrorists and shoot them.
3. Keep giving terrorists what they want until they're not unhappy anymore.

All of these choices have good points and bad points, however I don't see that any of them will actually prevent all terrorist activity. Obviously, there are a lot of side considerations as well.

One of my big complaints about all of the dialogue surrounding the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, etcetera, is that none of it addresses the real issue. People are concerned about the civil war in Iraq, and our losses there. The Afghani warlords, and our continuing inability to find Osama bin Laden seem more relevant, but still distract from the real issue. The Isrealis have been dealing with the terrorist attacks from the Palestinians for fifty years, but even today, suicide bombings still occur.

I don't want to wake up tomorrow to death squads, suicide bombings, or the like in my backyard. How do we prevent that? I don't think cameras or random bag searches are going to work. I don't think that intercepting international phone calls is going to work. I don't think that banning guns, explosives, or rocks is going to work. Some of those things may help, but at the end of the day, I really don't see any way to prevent angry people from doing bad things.

Any ideas?

Comments

[winterswitchery.livejournal.com]

I've been fond of the turn it into a huge parking lot approach.

But I often subscribe to the "Malcolm solves his problems with a chainsaw" approach lol

Malcolm solves his problems with a chainsaw

[kuzu-no-ha.livejournal.com]

Well... he never has the same problem twice.

and he goes..AHHHHHHHHHHADFHHAHAHAH


problem solved.

[nrawling.livejournal.com]

Yes, an unpleasant thought has been bouncing around in my head the last few days. The sad truth is that as horrific as genocide is, at some level, it works. If your major social problem/civil war/political program is a particular group, and you kill everyone in that group, the problem goes away (at least for a little while). I don't think it's a viable long term strategy (as the Mid-East is living proof), but in the short term (i.e. the lifetime of one psychotic dictator) it can really simplify your politics and terrify anyone else that disagrees with you.

I think the best strategy prevention of genocide is an armed society. Over and over again, we see genocides were one side has all the guns and the other doesn't. It doesn't matter how diplomatic, peaceful, and inclusive you are when you're shot through the head.

[baronessmartha.livejournal.com]

I think you should focus on making your dog knock off climate change first. I mean really, one issue at a time.

I think Griff is the terrorism cat. Just look at his eyes. Clearly the professor dunstable is just a low level messenger.

[nrawling.livejournal.com]

"The dictator is the dictator, is the dictator."

We're not a democracy at our house; it is more much akin to sovereign states bound by treaties.

[peregrine58.livejournal.com]

I agree with you. I have a problem with calling it a war on terror. War on a concept. You can't win it. What are the end goals? But by calling it a war on Terror you can definitely lose it by allowing it to control and change how you act and think. By changing the way you operate.

Going through the airport listening to the TSA alerts just makes me sad. It gives me the feel of waiting for an air raid siren at times. 8 flights in the last two weeks (no non-stops) it can be wearing listening to it.

[nrawling.livejournal.com]

Well, certainly the War on Drugs didn't work very well. But I have to admit, I also wonder if it would work better if we were more determined and less wishy-washy. I think that the democratic societies of the world have lost the backbone to win any armed confrontation.

World War II was a nightmare, but the half-hearted attempts to accomplish military objectives of the past fifty years are arguably worse. If you lack the conviction to win, all you do is waste lives and resources. The United States has the capacity to defeat any single enemy, but we fail to use it. Again, and again, and again.

The TSA alerts are pointless, as security professionals point out all the time. Still, when everyone is clamoring for the government to do something, they will, but they might not take the time to figure out what the right thing to do actually is.

After I watched the towers fall on 9/11, I wanted to kill terrorists and those that harbor and support them. At that moment, it seemed like nearly everyone agreed with me. I still do, but it seems like almost everyone else has forgotten.

no easy answer

[osgkar.livejournal.com]

disarming the populoous makes the lawful easier prey for the unlawful.
serching random people fixes nothing.
Sorta like a fly strip does not fix the bug issue,
racial and cultural screneing while seems unfair would net more significant results.
But we are curtailing the civil rights of a minority.
THe needs of the many out way the needs of a few?
Is Society more important than an individual?

Re: no easy answer

[nrawling.livejournal.com]

More significant results, but still not perfect. Racial profiling wouldn't have caught McVeigh. I think really, we just have to accept the reality that terrorism cannot be prevented, only reacted too. It's painful, but I don't really see any real option. The best medicine I can see is to make the punishment swift, forceful, and determined, in order to maximize the amount of deterrence.

[nrawling.livejournal.com]

We have always differed on this; I am very stubborn, and I insist on continuing to have hope. I believe the decision to strive against the stupidity and ignorance brings my life meaning. But, I recognize that every person must find their own purpose.

As far as Glocks v. Tanks goes, that is one of the principal reasons why I feel that individuals should be allowed to keep and possess weapons of war. To be fair, treads are pretty hard on the asphalt, but there is no moral reason why I shouldn't be able to have a fully functional tank loaded for bear locked up in my garage (my hypothetical garage, since I really have a collapsing carriage barn).

It appears to me that the intent of the Founders was to prevent the government from ever possessing military superiority over it's citizens, in the interest of preventing a repeat of the problems in Europe. Certainly, restricting the citizenry to semi-automatic small-arms is not consistent with that goal.

[nrawling.livejournal.com]

On the body armor topic, I totally agree. It is crazy that we ban defensive equipment out of fear that it will make it harder for the police to kill criminals. Still, I believe only Connecticut and New York have body armor restrictions for non-felons. This site was recommended to me: http://www.bulletproofme.com/Quick_Answers.shtml#13

The reality is that the crazy-bad-evil people are going to disobey any law that restricts their weapon ownership, and I think leveling the playing field just makes more sense.

[nrawling.livejournal.com]

Huh. I didn't realize that adultery (MCL 750.30) was a felony in Michigan. File that one away, I guess. I didn't see any cases linked in the MCLA, but I have to admit I'm not too saavy of with the Michigan statutes. The state law prohibiting violent felons from having body armor (which can be waived by local police) is probably over-ridden by the federal statute anyhow. Somehow I doubt the federal equivalent has such an exception in it.

I was pretty fond of the riot shield myself, but they want about $1500 for it, which is just way too much for me.

[laurensa.livejournal.com]

Heh heh heh. Dear old Michigan. Antiquated, behind the times, old fashioned...tell me WHY I want to go back?

Answer: I live in Pennsylvania.