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

[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.