Is terrorism *primarily* a policing or military problem?

Customary apologies for not finding a thread on the topic already out.

When I was a kid - well before the Cole or embassy bombings and all that, I always thought of terrorism as a domestic crime, and not a military assault (like we think today).

Something better left in the province of policing than the army.

Did anybody else think like that?

I was thinking about it... it's sort of in a nebulous area between policing and the military and neither full police power nor full military power seem to provide the answer.

Is there a reason for this paradigm shift? Is it just because of the language of the war on terror, or does it have to do with the outside forces involved in terrorism?

It still a policing matter.

The military cannot defeat terrorism.

terrorism is a mindset. send in the millitary, and you are doing the recruiting.

send in the police to arrest and try the individuals, you set an exampe, and show how terrorism is wrong.

However, the military can 'police' aswell.

So what is to be done with international terrorist forces from unfriendly nations?

We can't send the NYPD to Syria - and certainly Syria will not crack down on anti US terrorism unless there is something in it for them - which is extortion.

Isn't that fundamentally more military?

well give them their carrot.

It will be cheaper than invading.

I am sure that syrians would not want terrorists in theior country.

(and anti Israel stuff should IMO be kept out of this subject... that is another argument... a clash of countries...)

The problem with giving every one their cookie is that they will want more.

Plus a glass of milk.

And the US taxpayers are definitely not interested in paying bribes.

It's not really effective policy and it's definitely not popular policy

you define the carrot.

If you define the carrot as a better trade relationship...

the US tax payers do not ay anything. aart from the opportunity to make a buck.

Again I do not see syria (as an example) for having any gains from not cracking down on terrorists.

The terrorists will also kill syrians...

Any particular reason why you pick out Syria, Dave?

probably because of media reports...

The gov cannot decide between syria and Iran atm.

which one they should eliminate first.

Just think: if the are planning theor forces out if Iraq next year, ehich way should they turn? east or west?

:twisted:

[quote="Constantine"]So what is to be done with international terrorist forces from unfriendly nations?

We can't send the NYPD to Syria - and certainly Syria will not crack down on anti US terrorism unless there is something in it for them - which is extortion.

Isn't that fundamentally more military?[/quote]

Perhaps but if Hollywood has taught me anything its that the LAPD could probably deal with, and we shouldn't hesitate to send them in.

I was just scanning this thread and then acidentally saw the phrase "glass of milk", it was weird I zoomed in on it, and was transfixed for like five minutes, I honestly tried to read the post it was in, :oops: but I couldn't stop looking at it...perhaps its a sign.

[quote="irfghan"]Any particular reason why you pick out Syria, Dave?[/quote]

Iran is mainly hezbollah which is more centered on Israel

Saudi Arabia "offically" doesn't support terrorism and since we have treaties that prevent espionage there is no way to disprove that

I am unfamiliar with Yeman and Oman but from what I understand they are pretty docile - sorta like UAE which definitely doesn't support terrorism, lol they are like the florida of the middle east

Afghanistan is essentially a weak state but committed against terrorism because we tell them to be

Egypt is authoritarian and has serious problem with terrorism that threaten the regime

Turkey is trying so very hard to distance themselves from anything even remotely Islamic just out of the fear of being identified with "islamism" which would dash their imaginary shot at EU membership

Pakistan screwed up last time they supported terrorism and the US had to come in and clean up shop.

Really Syria and Iran are the only countries with anything remotely to gain by supporting terrorism - but Iran is so focused on Hezbollah and so isolated because it is Shi'a it is slightly less dangerous than Syria.

The only thing I can think of in favor of Syria is that it is similar to Egypt in that some terrorist groups are a threat to the authoritarian regime.

But they are the best choice of all.

To Dawud: your body may be craving milk.

Go have a glass. It could be good for you.

It just happened again, you really shouldn't have put it on its own line. 🙂

[quote="Constantine"][quote="irfghan"]Any particular reason why you pick out Syria, Dave?[/quote]

Iran is mainly hezbollah which is more centered on Israel

Saudi Arabia "offically" doesn't support terrorism and since we have treaties that prevent espionage there is no way to disprove that

I am unfamiliar with Yeman and Oman but from what I understand they are pretty docile - sorta like UAE which definitely doesn't support terrorism, lol they are like the florida of the middle east

Afghanistan is essentially a weak state but committed against terrorism because we tell them to be

Egypt is authoritarian and has serious problem with terrorism that threaten the regime

Turkey is trying so very hard to distance themselves from anything even remotely Islamic just out of the fear of being identified with "islamism" which would dash their imaginary shot at EU membership

Pakistan screwed up last time they supported terrorism and the US had to come in and clean up shop.

Really Syria and Iran are the only countries with anything remotely to gain by supporting terrorism - but Iran is so focused on Hezbollah and so isolated because it is Shi'a it is slightly less dangerous than Syria.

The only thing I can think of in favor of Syria is that it is similar to Egypt in that some terrorist groups are a threat to the authoritarian regime.

But they are the best choice of all.[/quote]

So it's not a matter of 'US faces a threat from Syria'. It's just that if you had to pick a country you'd pick Syria.

Doesn't this say something about the atmosphere in the US?

Milk.

Now for those still reading: :twisted:

Syria is a Bath party state... but I do not see anything a foriegn country has to worry... unless it is Israel.

Syria will support movements against israel.

But I do not see it supporting groups going against the US or other country.

it has too much to lose.

It does not have the required military strength to win a military conflict.

however it always has missiles armed at israel, so it is a risky target for the US.

I can only see the US attacking Syria at the call of israel.

It almost nuked cairo due to Israel previously.

If I was in US gov, I would be more worried by the potential of treachery by Israel. It has previously attacked the US. but it was not publicised, due to treason by the CIA, that would also be exposed.

[quote="irfghan"]So it's not a matter of 'US faces a threat from Syria'. It's just that if you had to pick a country you'd pick Syria.

Doesn't this say something about the atmosphere in the US?[/quote]

lol no it's not a result of this "next target" syndrome.

Honestly the White House abandoned that with both Iran and Syria, they don't have the "political capital" to explore those venues anymore.

To illustrate my point:

[url=http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005%5C11%5C19%5Cstory_19… Times[/url]

Honestly the thought process outlined above really represented how I came to that conclusion.

As a practical matter I consider terrorism primarily on a substate operation level. State terrorism really is something that if it ever was the major part of terrorist activity was during the 70s with palestinian movements.

On some level or another I think all middle eastern regimes realize that terrorism is as big a threat to them as it is to the international community - but I also don't think they are able to handle policing the threat and even less willing to without enticement.

So basically... Pool intelligance, and let each state deal with their own issues.

If one chooses not to do so, the terrorists will destroy the state from within.

No need to make it a military issue.

[quote="Constantine"]
On some level or another I think all middle eastern regimes realize that terrorism is as big a threat to them as it is to the international community - but I also don't think they are able to handle policing the threat and even less willing to without enticement.[/quote]

Middle Eastern govs are oppressive. This breeds terrorism.

But what they do is use the terrorists. They use the threat to come down harder on their publics and to consolidate their own power.

In time of internal strife they can set the terrorists onto Israel and take the focus off what they are doing themselves.

Hafez al-Assad for example was only anti-Israel and pro-Palestinean when it suited him. Otherwise he undermined the Palestinans.
He even killed 2000 people in one Syrian town in one go, but was very vocal against Israeli treatment of Palestinians.

[quote="Admin"]So basically... Pool intelligance, and let each state deal with their own issues.

If one chooses not to do so, the terrorists will destroy the state from within.

No need to make it a military issue.[/quote]

Terrorists want to destroy states but not build new ones. They like to talk about caliphates and all that nonsense but I don't get the feeling their "sages" have those intentions.

They know full well failed states are excellent recruitment grounds and if there are friendly factions like in sudan or the taliban that want to set up a state - hell let em!

But Osama learned a valuable lesson from the afghanistan invasion - even friendly groups who set up states will turn on you if the security of their regime is seriously threatened.

The Taliban caved - nobody paid attention to it, but they did. They said they didn't know where Osama was, because he wasn't under their protection - id est "kill him"

So it can definitely be a military issue if they are mobilizing to destroy the state and set up not a new state but a terrorist recruitment ground

At one point they actually placed OBL under trial.

There the internatinal community failed.

They should have [resented the evidence.

Then the Taliban wou have a choice to convict OBL because of evidence, or not and lose their legitimacy.

As you said, they would have secured themselves, and convicted him.

The international community failed here.

But there was no time for trials Osama had to be caught right away.

In 1998 he was placed in trial for 45 days...

9/11 could have been prevented.

What happened?

Why was not this option listed: " None of the above " ?

[quote="Omrow"]Why was not this option listed: " None of the above " ?[/quote]

I'll add it.

As long as you explain

hmm never mind looks like i'm not allowed to add it

I think he meant if its not a police or military issue it could be a political moral one.

I have added it.

Its a security feature so that polls can only be editted by mods.

otherwise if you are losing in your argument, you could just switch the texts!

:twisted:

[quote="Admin"]I have added it.

Its a security feature so that polls can only be editted by mods.

otherwise if you are losing in your argument, you could just switch the texts!

:twisted:[/quote]

you mods... you're tricky

always three steps ahead

Salam

[quote="Constantine"]Is terrorism *primarily* a policing or military problem?[/quote]

Terrorism is like alcohol

Neither policing nor the military can sort it out.

Its a social issue.

United States once tried to totally ban alcohol consumption.

It failed.

The Prohibition did not work. Infact, it backfired.

Terrorism is a social disease that has crept into the Muslim society since the mid 19th century. We witnessed its poison on September 11, 2001.

Only society can root it out. It cannot do so without goverment help.

Presently muslims are politically weak. They have little lobbying power in Britain and America.

It is up to the government to listen to the right minded muslims on ways to turn this ugly tide of extremism.

Locking people up, or bombing them, only creates martyrs for their cause.

No amount of policing, tough laws, and military action, is able to get rid of this evil ideology.

Such measures only give encouragement to the fanatics into thinking that they have the "INFIDEL" on the run.

Omrow