What should the West do Now about Islamic Terrorism?

[Jumi]

I think the ostrich approach is not quite right either. Can we (Americans) allow some of the atrocities of groups in that part of the world to continue and close our ears to the pleadings of innocent villages getting destroyed and the people killed and raped? There were many in 1941 who thought America should not once again get involved in the seemingly perpetual European wars.

It's nothing like WW2 though.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Both, although the roles are different. The Islamic world and the west are now too intertwined.

I think the ostrich approach is not quite right either. Can we (Americans) allow some of the atrocities of groups in that part of the world to continue and close our ears to the pleadings of innocent villages getting destroyed and the people killed and raped? There were many in 1941 who thought America should not once again get involved in the seemingly perpetual European wars.

I think each individual decision has to be carefully considered using the wisdom gained from the past and make the best decision in each individual case. There will always be some damn if you do, damn if you don't, in this complex world.

Of course, G'anandaji, you're so right re "damned if we do and damned if we don't." Nothing new there for America. Interesting national karma. You've stated that the West does have a role to play. What does that look like for you? But, oops! You're the OP who asked that question in the first place! I agree also that each decision has to be weighed carefully. There is no blanket response.

But subtle, lingering questions still hang unasked in the air for me. Does self-rule, self-determination, self-sufficiency, self-defense ever enter into the equation? How many times will I allow a bunch of fanatic thugs to wipe out my neighbor's village while knowing those thugs are just over the hill and on their way to mine? Do I simply place a phone call and wait for my conflicted Big Brother to come and rescue me? Or do I prepare a response? This question is as germane to what's happening in the U.S. as to what's happening abroad. "Somebody else will take care of me, defend the loss of my freedoms, the bastardization of my ideals, the raping and pillaging of my womenfolk and farmlands, the destruction of my country and constitution...." I've been watching and waiting since the Reagan era but maybe the time has come to get off my duff?

 

[David1967]

no one ever likes my suggestions on "handling" terrorism.

Please share.

 

[Twilight Hue]

A gigantic glass parking lot would be a great start.

I think Patton, if still alive would be more than happy to placate Islamic terrorists in his own special way.

 

[Aquitaine]

The West is just paying what their politic leader done in Syria and Iraq and Libya.

since 2011 ,For 6 years your politics leaders supporting terrorists in Syria and Libya by guns and weapons ,they fooled you , by supporting rebels,revolution, blah blah ...etc

Stop supporting terrorists in Syria,which they called "rebels" .

A significant number of western civilians (perhaps even the majority) disagree and disapprove of such actions, yet they're carried out anyway by our governments.
The terrorists aren't targeting the politicians though: they're just lazily targeting civilians.

Finally, not all of the terrorists are born/raised in those countries, some are western born and are using excuses to attack civilians.

 

[Aquitaine]

An effective way of dealing with bullies and unreasonable madmen is to show them you are crazier than they are. It would be a great tragedy, and likely in violation of numerous international law, but it seems we are in a position of needing to send an army with a leader who can instill a very deep sense of fear into them, and make them too afraid to even think about attacking us again, much like how Vlad III terrorized Mehmed II and the Ottoman Turks out of Romania (and ISIS is certainly not even close to being able to be compared to Mehmed the Conquer).

Honestly that sounds like a terrible idea: unnecessary military interventions enacted under dubious reasons is one of the primary causes for this mess.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Honestly that sounds like a terrible idea: unnecessary military interventions enacted under dubious reasons is one of the primary causes for this mess.

There continued attacks and influence are dubious reasons? We must it clear they are not welcome here, and it will be more than their death. They desire death. They want to be mayrted heroes. Make the cost so high they'll have second thoughts.

 

[YmirGF]

Honestly that sounds like a terrible idea: unnecessary military interventions enacted under dubious reasons is one of the primary causes for this mess.

It would work however if you gave the "General" full autonomy, refused to let any media cover the festivities and blocked all communication out of the region - in perpetuity. It would not work because we would never consider giving one person that kind of power, let alone the logistics of cutting off all communications. The media could be handled with a find spray of suppressing fire to keep them away though....

 

[YmirGF]

There continued attacks and influence are dubious reasons? We must it clear they are not welcome here, and it will be more than their death. They desire death. They want to be mayrted heroes. Make the cost so high they'll have second thoughts.

I do hear what you are saying and to an extent that would play out about right, however, the point is that we would never empower our military to be so incredibly aggressive. It's sort of like Jack Nicolson in A few Good men. We don't dare set someone like that loose because the public outcry over them doing what needed to be done would traumatize the general population if their methods and brutality ever got out.

What's the slogan, "We love death more than you love life?" or something like that. It's very hard to combat that kind of mentality. You can't really frighten them as in their warped view of reality they will just conclude that Allah is testing their metal and resolve. It's like trying to scare a cancerous tumor. The tumor doesn't care. Sadly, and unfortunately, there is only one way to get rid of this kind of a social cancer but the doctors are afraid of the moral ambiguity of doing the operation.

 

[Godobeyer]

A significant number of western civilians (perhaps even the majority) disagree and disapprove of such actions, yet they're carried out anyway by our governments.
The terrorists aren't targeting the politicians though: they're just lazily targeting civilians.

Finally, not all of the terrorists are born/raised in those countries, some are western born and are using excuses to attack civilians.

They target all civilians (Muslims and non-Muslims) .
They believe that you vote for your governments so you are responsible too.they believe it's you which cause the suffering of Palestinians and Iraqis and Syria,and Libyan .

for whom born and raised in West ,they may sympathy with others, or get provoked by "Hebdo"...etc

 

[Godobeyer]

A significant number of western civilians (perhaps even the majority) disagree and disapprove of such actions, yet they're carried out anyway by our governments.
The terrorists aren't targeting the politicians though: they're just lazily targeting civilians.

Finally, not all of the terrorists are born/raised in those countries, some are western born and are using excuses to attack civilians.

They target all civilians (Muslims and non-Muslims) .
They believe that you vote for your governments so you are responsible too.they believe it's you which cause the suffering of Palestinians and Iraqis and Syria,and Libyan ,and being silent for Burma genocide to Muslims ...etc

for whom born and raised in West ,they may sympathy with others, or get provoked by "Hebdo"...etc

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I think Patton, if still alive would be more than happy to placate Islamic terrorists in his own special way.

Nah, he just used to go around slapping people.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Terrorism is a tool, an action. Can't do much about that. But what we can do is examine the causes of it, what draws people towards violent extremist ideologies in the first place, what the risk factors are, what the social factors are, etc. and then we can use that data to solve the problem at the root of it. From what I know, violent extremist movements are highly correlated with poverty, unemployment, lack of prospects for the future, lack of education, a sense of disenfranchisement, etc. Bombing people and terrorizing them back is just completely stupid and sadistic. That's no answer at all, unless you're sick in the head and actually want to make things exponentially worse. This can only be addressed with peaceful means.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So, my OP was trying to ask where we go from here....non-intervention towards worthy causes asking for assistance?...stand by and watch torture and slaughter? Some of our decisions are arguably good and bad (especially with the aid of hindsight) but even doing nothing now is a decision.

Provide non-partisan humanitarian relief only, as part of UN missions. No militaristic conquests under the guise of "human rights".

 

[Godobeyer]

And I absolutely agree. I remember being puzzled when the American forces stopped at the end of Desert Storm. They could have easily gone in and taken Saddam then and there. They stopped though. That made the renewed call to remove Saddam years later all the more puzzling. It just didn't make sense. The only reasonable option would have been a very small Seal Team which would have been an assassination squad. Go in, do the job and exist as soon as possible with the least casualties. The command decision blunders were especially terrible, like disbanding the Iraqi military, police forces and barring all Ba'athist members from working in the new Iraq security forces. (The point is anyone who knew anything was likely a member of the Ba'athist party. It would be like barring any Communist for holding any government office in China.) Yeah, that will work. What could possibly go wrong with a bunch of inexperienced people running things?

USA war against Iraq was great fault, it's consquence is still coming.

No one gain in that war , all losers , especially Iraqi people.

Political arrogance, the blame for which can be put directly at the feet of President Obama and his "brilliant" Secretary of State, Hillary R. Clinton. (And they want to give her the keys to the car after that disaster.)

I do believe it's intentional to burn up the Muslim world

I was meaning the attacks by Islamic militants that seem to be getting more frequent.

They are not "Islamic" , they claim that. but their acts not Islamic.

More that voilence increase in middle east , more that you will receive attacks.
It's like echos of earthquake, or flames of volcano, no one is safe.

Actualy we are paying what Bush familly and West did to Iraq,Syria and Libya.and Afghanistan,and bias to Israel against Palestinians ...etc

I think it's time that be the world should declare WW3 against terrorism in Syria and Iraq,and call for justice in Palestine, and Burma ...etc

 

[Godobeyer]

@YmirGF
if you burn something , you expect that you will have some warm

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Provide non-partisan humanitarian relief only, as part of UN missions. No militaristic conquests under the guise of "human rights".

A hands-off approach has some advantages, but then what? I can't see ISIS saying: "Oh, OK then, we'll stop all the invading and oppression and terrorism, and go home for a nice cup of tea." They are still going to represent a massive problem and so far it doesn't seem that other Islamic states have the ability ( willingness? ) to deal with it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

A hands-off approach has some advantages, but then what? I can't see ISIS saying: "Oh, OK then, we'll stop all the invading and oppression and terrorism, and go home for a nice cup of tea." They are still going to represent a massive problem and so far it doesn't seem that other Islamic states have the ability ( willingness? ) to deal with it.

ISIS wouldn't exist in the first place if the West hadn't have destroyed the region and directly and indirectly supported them.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

I'm more worried about what the east should do about Western/atheist/christian/jewish terrorism.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

ISIS wouldn't exist in the first place if the West hadn't have destroyed the region and directly and indirectly supported them.

Far too simplistic. Blaming it all on the west is just a smokescreen for the problems endemic in Islam, and is ironically the same nonsense that ISIS propagates in order to radicalise people.

See here for a different perspective: http://www.newstatesman.com/world-a...-arabia-exported-main-source-global-terrorism